Perceptions of plant breeding methods–from ‘phenotypic selection’ to ‘genetic modification’ and ‘new breeding technologies’

References

• Acquaah G. 2015. Conventional plant breeding principles and techniques. In: Al-Khayri J, Jain S, Johnson D, editor. Advances in plant breeding strategies: breeding, biotechnology and molecular tools. Cham: Springer; p. 115–158. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-22521-0_5
   Google Scholar
• Adenle AA. 2017. Chapter 14. The precautionary principle as a barrier to GMO risk analysis: elicitation of experts’ viewpoints. In: Adenle AA, Murphy DJ, Morris EJ, editors. Genetically modified organisms in developing countries: risk analysis and governance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; p. 162–172.
   Google Scholar
• Adli M. 2018. The CRISPR tool kit for genome editing and beyond. Nature Communications. 9:Article 1911. doi:10.1038/s41467-018-04252-2.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aerni P. 2019. Politicizing the precautionary principle: why disregarding facts should not pass for farsightedness. Frontiers in Plant Science. 10:Article 1053. doi:10.3389/fpls.2019.01053.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ahmar S, Gill RA, Jung KH, Faheem A, Qasim MU, Mubeen M, Zhou W. 2020. Conventional and molecular techniques from simple breeding to speed breeding in crop plants: recent advances and future outlook. International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 21:Article 2590. doi:10.3390/ijms21072590.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ahmar S, Mahmood T, Fiaz S, Mora-Poblete F, Shafique MS, Chattha MS, Jung K-H. 2021. Advantage of nanotechnology-based genome editing system and its application in crop improvement. Frontiers in Plant Science. 12:Article 663849. doi:10.3389/fpls.2021.663849.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Allard RW. 1960. Principles of plant breeding. New York: John Wiley and Sons Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Allied Market Research. 2022. Gene editing market by technology: Global opportunity analysis and industry forecast 2021-2031; [accessed 25 February 2023] https://www.alliedmarketresearch.com/gene-editing-market-A10973.
   Google Scholar
• Amann W, Khan S, Salzmann O, Steger U, Lonescu-Somer A. 2007. Managing external pressures through corporate diplomacy. Journal of General Management. 33:33–50. doi:10.1177/030630700703300103.
   Google Scholar
• Andersson M, Turesson H, Nicolia A, Fält A-S, Samuelsson M, Hofvander P. 2017. Efficient targeted multiallelic mutagenesis in tetraploid potato (solanum tuberosum) by transient CRISPR-Cas9 expression in protoplasts. Plant Cell Reports. 36:117–128. doi:10.1007/s00299-016-2062-3.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anyshchenko A, Yarnold J. 2021. From ‘mad cow’ crisis to synthetic biology: challenges to EU regulation of GMOs beyond the European context. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics. 21:391–404. doi:10.1007/s10784-020-09516-1.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ashby E. 1937. Studies in the inheritance of physiological characters: III. Hybrid vigour in the tomato: part. 1. Manifestations of hybrid vigour from germination to the onset of flowering. Annals of Botany. 1:11–41. http://www.jstor.org/stable/42908405.
   Google Scholar
• Ashraf M, Foolad MR. 2013. Crop breeding for salt tolerance in the era of molecular markers and marker-assisted selection. Plant Breeding. 132:10–20. doi:10.1111/pbr.12000.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Atanassova A, Keiper F. 2018. Plant breeding innovation: a global regulatory perspective. Cereal Chemistry. 95:8–16. doi:10.1002/cche.10021.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Balfourier F, Bouchet S, Robert S, De Oliveira R, Rimbert H, Kitt J, Choulet F, International Wheat Genome Sequencing Consortium, Breed Wheat Consortium, Paux E. 2019. Worldwide phylogeography and history of wheat genetic diversity. Science Advances. 5:Article eaav0536. doi:10.1126/sciadv.aav0536.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Balocchi OA, López IF. 2009. Herbage production, nutritive value and grazing preference of diploid and tetraploid perennial ryegrass cultivars (lolium perenne L.). Chilean Journal of Agricultural Research. 69:331–339.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bandyopadhyay A, Kancharla N, Javalkote VS, Dasgupta S, Brutnell TP. 2020. CRISPR-Cas12a (Cpf1): A versatile tool in the plant genome editing tool box for agricultural advancement. Frontiers in Plant Science. 11:Article 584151. doi:10.3389/fpls.2020.584151.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baral K, Coulman B, Biligetu B, Fu Y-B. 2020. Advancing crested wheatgrass [agropyron cristatum (L.) Gaertn.] breeding through genotyping-by-sequencing and genomic selection. PLOS ONE. 15: Article 20239609. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0239609.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barman M, Ghosh S, Das K, Mondol SA. 2020. Intragenesis as a sustainable crop improvement method: a review. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences. 9:773–782. doi:10.20546/ijcmas.2020.904.092.
   Google Scholar
• Barrell PJ, Jacobs JME, Baldwin SJ, Conner AJ. 2010. Intragenic vectors for plant transformation within gene pools. CABI Reviews: Perspectives in Agriculture, Veterinary Science, Nutrition and Natural Resources. 5(010):18pp. doi:10.1079/PAVSNNR20205010.
   Google Scholar
• Bashaw EC. 1980. Hybridization of crop plants. In: Fehr WR, Hadley HH, editors. Hybridization of crop plants. Chapter 3. ASA, CSSA and SSSA Books; p. 45–63. doi:10.2135/1980.hybridizationofcrops.c3.
   Google Scholar
• Basso MF, Arraes FB, Grossi-de-Sa M, Moreira VJ, Alves-Ferreira M, Grossi-de-Sa MF. 2020. Insights into genetic and molecular elements for transgenic crop development. Frontiers in Plant Science. 11:Article 509. doi:10.3389/fpls.2020.00509.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bateson W, Mendel G. 2013. Mendel's principles of heredity. Courier Corporation.
   Google Scholar
• Baulcombe D, Dunwell J, Jones J, Pickett J, Puigdomenech P. 2014. GM Science update: a report to the Council for Science and Technology; [accessed 12 January 2023]. https://centaur.reading.ac.uk/36228/1/GM%20Science%20Update%20-%20Report%20to%20CST%20110314.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Bell GD, Kane NC, Rieseberg LH, Adams KL. 2013. RNA-seq analysis of allele-specific expression, hybrid effects, and regulatory divergence in hybrids compared with their parents from natural populations. Genome Biology and Evolution. 5:1309–1323. doi:10.1093/gbe/evt072.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bezie Y, Tilahun T, Atnaf M, Taye M. 2021. The potential applications of site-directed mutagenesis for crop improvement: a review. Journal of Crop Science and Biotechnology. 24:229–244. doi:10.1007/s12892-020-00080-3.
   Google Scholar
• Bibikova M, Beumer K, Trautman JK, Carroll D. 2003. Enhancing gene targeting with designed zinc finger nucleases. Science. 300:764–764. doi:10.1126/science.1079512.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bibikova M, Golic M, Golic KG, Carroll D. 2002. Targeted chromosomal cleavage and mutagenesis in drosophila using zinc-finger nucleases. Genetics. 161:1169–1175. doi:10.1093/genetics/161.3.1169.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Biospace. 2023. Gene editing market size to reach USD 18.50 billion in 2028 | Industry trend – extensive use of gene editing in development of personalized medicine; [accessed 25 February 2023]. https://www.biospace.com/article/gene-editing-market-size-to-reach-usd-18-50-billion-in-2028-industry-trend-extensive-use-of-gene-editing-in-development-of-personalized-medicine/.
   Google Scholar
• Bogdanove AJ, Schornack S, Lahaye T. 2010. TAL effectors: finding plant genes for disease and defense. Current Opinion in Plant Biology. 13:394–401. doi:10.1016/j.pbi.2010.04.010.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bonny S. 2008. Genetically modified glyphosate-tolerant soybean in the USA: adoption factors, impacts and prospects. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development. 28:21–32. doi:10.1051/agro:2007044.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bonny S. 2011. Herbicide-tolerant transgenic soybean over 15 years of cultivation: pesticide use, weed resistance, and some economic issues. The case of the USA. Sustainability. 3:1302–1322. doi:10.3390/su3091302.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bowerman AF, Byrt CS, Roy SJ, Whitney SM, Mortimer JC, Ankeny RA, Gilliham M, Zhang D, Millar AA, Rebetzke GJ, Pogson BJ. 2023. Potential abiotic stress targets for modern genetic manipulation. The Plant Cell. 35:139–161. doi:10.1093/plcell/koac327.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bowley SR, Taylor NL. 1987. Introgressive hybridization. In: Christie BR, editor. CRC handbook of plant science in agriculture. Vol. 1. Boca Raton (FL): CRC Press; p. 23–59.
   Google Scholar
• Brandle JE, McVetty PBE. 1989. Heterosis and combining ability in hybrids derived from oilseed rape cultivars and inbred lines. Crop Science. 29:1191–1194. doi:10.2135/cropsci1989.0011183X002900050020x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Breseghello F, Coelho ASG. 2013. Traditional and modern plant breeding methods with examples in rice (Oryza sativa L.). Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. 61:8277–8286. doi:10.1021/jf305531j.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bruce DM. 2017. Genome editing: does it move the goalposts on the GM playing field? In: San-Epifanio LE, editor. Towards a new regulatory framework for GM crops in the European union: scientific, ethical, social and legal issues and the challenges ahead. Chapter 7. Wageningen, The Netherlands: Wageningen Academic Publishers; p. 123–129.
   Google Scholar
• Brune P, Chakravarthy S, Graser G, Mathesius CA, McClain S, Petrick JS, Sauve-Ciencewicki A, Schafer B, Silvanovich A, Brink K, Burgin K, et al. 2021. Core and supplementary studies to assess the safety of genetically modified (GM) plants used for food and feed. Journal of Regulatory Science. 9:45–60. doi:10.21423/jrs-v09i1brune.
   Google Scholar
• Buchholzer M, Frommer WB. 2023. An increasing number of countries regulate genome editing in crops. New Phytologist. 237:12–15. doi:10.1111/nph.18333.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Budhlakoti N, Kushwaha AK, Rai A, Chaturvedi KK, Kumar A, Pradhan AK, Kumar U, Kumar RR, Juliana P, Mishra DC, Kumar S. 2022. Genomic selection: a tool for accelerating the efficiency of molecular breeding for development of climate-resilient crops. Frontiers in Genetics. 13:Article 832153. doi:10.3389/fgene.2022.832153
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cabrera-Ponce JL, Barraza A, Alvarez-Venegas R. 2022. Cisgenic crops: major strategies to create cisgenic plants based on genome editing. In: Chaurasia A, Kole C, editors. Cisgenic crops: potential and prospects. concepts and strategies in plant sciences. Cham: Springer; p. 213–235. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-06628-3_11
   Google Scholar
• Calyxt. 2019. First commercial sale of Calyxt high oleic soybean oil on the U.S. market. Press Release; [accessed 19 January 2023]. https://calyxt.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/20190226_PR-Calyno-Commercialization.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Caradus JR. 2022. Ergot alkaloids in New Zealand pastures and their impact. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research. 65:1–41. doi:10.1080/00288233.2020.1785514
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cardi T, Neal Stewart C. 2016. Progress of targeted genome modification approaches in higher plants. Plant Cell Reports. 35:1401–1416. doi:10.1007/s00299-016-1975-1.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cartagena Protocol. 2000. Cartagena protocol on biosafety to the convention on biological diversity; [accessed 1 January 2023]. https://www.cbd.int/doc/legal/cartagena-protocol-en.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Carzoli AK, Aboobucker SI, Sandall LL, Lübberstedt TT, Suza WP. 2018. Risks and opportunities of GM crops: Bt maize example. Global Food Security. 19:84–91. doi:10.1016/j.gfs.2018.10.004.
   Google Scholar
• Casañas F, Simó J, Casals J, Prohens J. 2017. Toward an evolved concept of landrace. Frontiers in Plant Science. 08:Article 145. doi:10.3389/fpls.2017.00145.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• CFIA. 2016. Canadian Food Inspection Agency. Regulating agricultural biotechnology in Canada: an overview; [accessed 28 December 2022]. https://inspection.canada.ca/plant-varieties/plants-with-novel-traits/general-public/regulating-agricultural-biotechnology/eng/1338187581090/1338188593891.
   Google Scholar
• Chahota RK, Kishore N, Dhiman KC, Sharma TR, Sharma SK. 2007. Predicting transgressive segregants in early generation using single seed descent method-derived micro-macrosperma genepool of lentil (lens culinaris medikus). Euphytica. 156:305–310. doi:10.1007/s10681-007-9359-9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chakwizira E, Maley S, Dumbleton A. 2021. Water use efficiency of raphanobrassica and forage rape. Agronomy Journal of New Zealand. 51:35–46.
   Google Scholar
• Chandrasekaran J, Brumin M, Wolf D, Leibman D, Klap C, Pearlsman M, Sherman A, Arazi T, Gal-On A. 2016. Development of broad virus resistance in non-transgenic cucumber using CRISPR/Cas9 technology. Molecular Plant Pathology. 17:1140–1153. doi:10.1111/mpp.12375.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Char SN, Unger-Wallace E, Frame B, Briggs SA, Main M, Spalding MH, Vollbrecht E, Wang K, Yang B. 2015. Heritable site-specific mutagenesis using TALENs in maize. Plant Biotechnology Journal. 13:1002–1010. doi:10.1111/pbi.12344.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chawla R, Shakya R, Rommens CM. 2012. Tuber-specific silencing of asparagine synthetase-1 reduces the acrylamide-forming potential of potatoes grown in the field without affecting tuber shape and yield. Plant Biotechnology Journal. 10:913–924. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7652.2012.00720.x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen L, Liu Y-G. 2014. Male sterility and fertility restoration in crops. Annual Review of Plant Biology. 65:579–606. doi:10.1146/annurev-arplant-050213-040119.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clancy KA. 2016. The politics of genetically modified organisms in the United States and Europe. Basingstoke, UK and New York: Palgrave Macmillan published by Springer International, Switzerland. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-33984-9
   Google Scholar
• Clapp J, Ruder S-L. 2020. Precision technologies for agriculture: digital farming, gene-edited crops, and the politics of sustainability. Global Environmental Politics. 20:49–69. doi:10.1162/glep_a_00566.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clasen BM, Stoddard TJ, Luo S, Demorest ZL, Li J, Cedrone F, Tibebu R, Davison S, Ray EE, Daulhac A, Coffman A. 2016. Improving cold storage and processing traits in potato through targeted gene knockout. Plant Biotechnology Journal. 14:169–176. doi:10.1111/pbi.12370.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Collard BCY, Jahufer MZZ, Brouwer JB, Pang ECK. 2005. An introduction to markers, quantitative trait loci (QTL) mapping and marker-assisted selection for crop improvement: The basic concepts. Euphytica. 142:169–196. doi:10.1007/s10681-005-1681-5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Collard BCY, Mackill DJ. 2008. Marker-assisted selection: an approach for precision plant breeding in the twenty-first century. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 363:557–572. doi:10.1098/rstb.2007.2170.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cong L, Ran FA, Cox D, Lin S, Barretto R, Habib N, Hsu PD, Wu X, Jiang W, Marraffini LA, Zhang F. 2013. Multiplex genome engineering using CRISPR/Cas systems. Science. 339:819–823. https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126science.1231143.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Conko G. 2003. Safety, risk and the precautionary principle: rethinking precautionary approaches to the regulation of transgenic plants. Transgenic Research. 12:639–647. doi:10.1023/B:TRAG.0000005157.45046.8e.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Conner AJ, Barrell PJ, Baldwin SJ, Lokerse AS, Cooper PA, Erasmuson AK, Nap JP, Jacobs JME. 2007. Intragenic vectors for gene transfer without foreign DNA. Euphytica. 154:341–353. doi:10.1007/s10681-006-9316-z.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cook G, Robbins PT, Pieri E. 2006. “Words of mass destruction”: British newspaper coverage of the genetically modified food debate, expert and non-expert reactions. Public Understanding of Science. 15:5–29. doi:10.1177/0963662506058756.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crossa J, Pérez P, de los Campos G, Mahuku G, Dreisigacker S, Magorokosho C. 2011. Genomic selection and prediction in plant breeding. Journal of Crop Improvement. 25:239–261. doi:10.1080/15427528.2011.558767.
   Google Scholar
• Crossa J, Pérez-Rodríguez P, Cuevas J, Montesinos-López O, Jarquı´n D, de Los Campos G, Burgueño J, González-Camacho JM, Pérez-Elizalde S, Beyene Y, Dreisigacker S. 2017. Genomic selection in plant breeding: methods, models, and perspectives. Trends in Plant Science. 22:961–975. doi:10.1016/j.tplants.2017.08.011.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cunningham FJ, Goh NS, Demirer GS, Matos JL. 2018. Nanoparticle-mediated delivery towards advancing plant genetic engineering. Trends in Biotechnology. 36:882–897. doi:10.1016/j.tibtech.2018.03.009.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Curry HA. 2022. Hybrid seeds in history and historiography. Isis. 113:610–617. doi:10.1086/721075.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Curtin SJ, Xiong Y, Michno JM, Campbell BW, Stec AO, Čermák T, Starker C, Voytas DF, Eamens AL, Stupar RM. 2018. CRISPR/cas9 and TALENs generate heritable mutations for genes involved in small RNA processing of glycine max and medicago truncatula. Plant Biotechnology Journal. 16:1125–1137. doi:10.1111/pbi.12857.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dandekar AM, Jacobson A, Ibáñez AM, Gouran H, Dolan DL, Agüero CB, Sl U, Just R, Zaini PA. 2019. Trans-graft protection against Pierce’s disease mediated by transgenic grapevine rootstocks. Frontiers in Plant Science. 10:Article 84. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389fpls.2019.00084.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Das MK, Dai HK. 2007. A survey of DNA motif finding algorithms. BMC Bioinformatics. 8(7):Article S21. doi:10.1186/1471-2105-8-S7-S21.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DeFrancesco L. 2013. How safe does transgenic food need to be? Nature Biotechnology. 31:794–802. doi:10.1038/nbt.2686.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Delaney B, Goodman RE, Ladics GS. 2018. Food and feed safety of genetically engineered food crops. Toxicological Sciences. 162:361–371. doi:10.1093/toxsci/kfx249.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Langhe E, Hřibová E, Carpentier S, Doležel J, Swennen R. 2010. Did backcrossing contribute to the origin of hybrid edible bananas? Annals of Botany. 106:849–857. doi:10.1093/aob/mcq187.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Desta ZA, Ortiz R. 2014. Genomic selection: genome-wide prediction in plant improvement. Trends in Plant Science. 19:592–601. doi:10.1016/j.tplants.2014.05.006.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Thomazella DPT, Seong K, Mackelprang R, Dahlbeck D, Geng Y, Gill US, Qia T, Pham J, Giuseppe P, Lee CT, et al. 2021. Loss of function of a DMR6 ortholog in tomato confers broad-spectrum disease resistance. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 118: Article e2026152118. doi:10.1073/pnas.2026152118.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Vetten N, Wolters A, Raemakers K, van der Meer I, ter Stege R, Heeres E, Heeres P, Visser R. 2003. A transformation method for obtaining marker-free plants of a cross-pollinating and vegetatively propagated crop. Nature Biotechnology. 21:439–442.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dhekney SA, Li ZT, Gray DJ. 2011. Grapevines engineered to express cisgenic vitis vinifera thaumatin-like protein exhibit fungal disease resistance. Vitro Cellular & Developmental Biology - Plant. 47:458–466. doi:10.1007/s11627-011-9358-3.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dickert TE, Tracy WF. 2002. Heterosis for flowering time and agronomic traits among early open-pollinated sweet corn cultivars. Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science. 127:793–797. https://journals.ashs.org/jashs/view/journals/jashs/127/5/article-p793.xml.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dona A, Arvanitoyannis IS. 2009. Health risks of genetically modified foods. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition. 49:164–175. doi:10.1080/10408390701855993.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dong C, Beetham P, Vincent K, Sharp P. 2006. Oligonucleotide-directed gene repair in wheat using a transient plasmid gene repair assay system. Plant Cell Reports. 25:457–465. doi:10.1007/s00299-005-0098-x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Doudna JA, Charpentier E. 2014. The new frontier of genome engineering with CRISPR-Cas9. Science. 346:Article 1258096. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126science.1258096
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Doudna JA, Sternberg SH. 2017. A crack in creation: gene editing and the unthinkable power to control evolution. HarperCollins. https://books.google.com/books/about/A_Crack_In_Creation.html?hl = de&id = F8WlDAAAQBAJ.
   Google Scholar
• Drew RA, Magdalita PM, O'Brien CM. 1998. Development of Carica interspecific hybrids. Acta Horticulturae. 2(461):285–292. doi:10.17660/ActaHortic.1998.461.31.
   Google Scholar
• Duan YB, Li J, Qin RY, Xu RF, Li H, Yang YC, Ma H, Li L, Wei PC, Yang JB. 2016. Identification of a regulatory element responsible for salt induction of rice OsRAV2 through ex situ and in situ promoter analysis. Plant Molecular Biology. 90:49–62. doi:10.1007/s11103-015-0393-z.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dudley JW, Moll RH. 1969. Interpretation and use of estimates of heritability and genetic variances in plant breeding. Crop Science. 9:257–262. doi:10.2135/cropsci1969.0011183X000900030001x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dumbleton A, Foley F, Westwood C, Box G. 2022. The development of Pallaton raphanobrassica for New Zealand farming systems. Journal of New Zealand Grasslands. 83:107–114. doi:10.33584/jnzg.2021.83.3505.
   Google Scholar
• Duvick DN. 1999. ASA, CSSA, and SSSA books. In: Coors JG, Pandey S, editors. Genetics and exploitation of heterosis in crops. Chapter 27. p. 295–304. doi:10.2134/1999.geneticsandexploitation.c27
   Google Scholar
• Eckerstorfer MF, Dolezel M, Heissenberger A, Miklau M, Reichenbecher W, Steinbrecher RA, Waßmann F. 2019. An EU perspective on biosafety considerations for plants developed by genome editing and other new genetic modification techniques (nGMs). Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology. 7:Article 31.10.3389/fbioe.2019.00031.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edwards S. 2017. Research into genetically modified organisms in New Zealand: an examination of a sociotechnical controversy. Case Studies in the Environment. 1:1–8.
   Google Scholar
• EFSA GMO Panel (EFSA Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms), Naegeli H, Bresson J-L, Dalmay T, Dewhurst IC, Epstein MM, Firbank LG, Guerche P, Hejatko J, Moreno FJ, Mullins E, et al. 2020. Applicability of the EFSA opinion on site-directed nucleases type 3 for the safety assessment of plants developed using site-directed nucleases type 1 and 2 and oligonucleotide-directed mutagenesis. EFSA Journal. 18(6299):14. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2020.6299.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eichelbaum T, Allan J, Fleming J, Randerson R. 2001. Report of the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification. Wellington, New Zealand. [accessed 1 January 2023]. https://environment.govt.nz/assets/Publications/Files/Royal-Commission-on-GM-in-NZ-Final.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Erdmann RM, Picard CL. 2020. RNA-directed DNA methylation. PLOS Genetics. 16:Article e1009034. doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1009034.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eş I, Gavahian M, Marti-Quijal FJ, Lorenzo JM, Khaneghah AM, Tsatsanis C, Kampranis SC, Barba FJ. 2019. The application of the CRISPR-Cas9 genome editing machinery in food and agricultural science: current status, future perspectives, and associated challenges. Biotechnology Advances. 37:410–421. doi:10.1016/j.biotechadv.2019.02.006.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ETC Group. 2013. Putting the cartel before the horse … and farm, seeds, soil, peasants, etc. who will control agricultural inputs, 2013? Communiqué No. 111. p. 40. https://www.etcgroup.org/sites/www.etcgroup.org/files/CartelBeforeHorse11Sep2013.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• EU Directive. 2001. Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC; [accessed 1 January 2023]. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri = CONSLEG:2001L0018:20080321:EN:PDF.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. 2000. Communication from the Commission on the Pre-Cautionary Principle: COM (2000) 1 final; [accessed 2 January 2023]. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri = CELEX%3A52000DC0001.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. 2021. Directorate-General for research and innovation. Ethics of genome editing. European group on ethics in science and new technologies. Opinion. 32:112. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777659034.
   Google Scholar
• European Political Strategy Centre. 2016. Towards an innovation principle endorsed by better regulation (EPSC Strategic Notes No. Issue 14); [accessed 2 January 2023]. https://wayback.archive-it.org/12090/20191129102319/https://ec.europa.eu/epsc/publications/strategic-notes/towards-innovation-principle-endorsed-better-regulation_en.
   Google Scholar
• eusage. 2023. European sustainable agriculture through genome editing. The European Community study on new genomic techniques; [accessed 11 January 2023]. https://www.eu-sage.eu/.
   Google Scholar
• Ewen SW, Pusztai A. 1999. Effect of diets containing genetically modified potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small intestine. The Lancet. 354:1353–1354. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(98)05860-7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Falconer D. 1960. Introduction to quantitative genetics. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd.
   Google Scholar
• FAO. 2022. Gene editing and agrifood systems. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. doi:10.4060/cc3579en
   Google Scholar
• Farhat S, Jain N, Singh N, Sreevathsa R, Das PK, Rai R, Yadav S, Kumar P, Sarkar A, Jain A. 2019. CRISPR-Cas9 directed genome engineering for enhancing salt stress tolerance in rice. Seminars in Cell & Developmental Biology. 96:91–99. doi:10.1016/j.semcdb.2019.05.003.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• FDA. 2020. US Food and Drug Administration. Food from new plant varieties; [accessed 28 December 2022]. https://www.fda.gov/food/food-ingredients-packaging/food-new-plant-varieties.
   Google Scholar
• Fisher RA. 1925. Statistical methods for research workers. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd. 239p.
   Google Scholar
• Fister AS, Landherr L, Maximova SN, Guiltinan MJ. 2018. Transient expression of CRISPR/Cas9 machinery targeting TcNPR3 enhances defense response in theobroma cacao. Frontiers in Plant Science. 9:Article 268. doi:10.3389/fpls.2018.00268.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flachowsky H, Hanke M-V, Piel A, Strauss SH, Fladung M. 2009. A review on transgenic approaches to accelerate breeding of woody plants. Plant Breeding. 128:217–226. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111j.1439-0523.2008.01591.x/pdf.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frankel R. 1983. Heterosis. In: Reappraisal of theory and practice. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Fraser PD, Enfissi EMA, Bramley PM. 2009. Genetic engineering of carotenoid formation in tomato fruit and the potential application of systems and synthetic biology approaches. Archives of Biochemistry and Biophysics. 483:196–204. doi:10.1016/j.abb.2008.10.009.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Freddy BO, Aimé DN, Jacques LNB, Sébastien LN. 2022. Cisgenesis and plant breeding: a review. In: Chaurasia A, Kole C, editors. Cisgenic crops: potential and prospects. Concepts and strategies in plant sciences. Cham: Springer; p. 79–87. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-06628-3_5.
   Google Scholar
• Fritsche S, Poovaiah C, MacRae E, Thorlby G. 2018. A New Zealand perspective on the application and regulation of gene editing. Frontiers in Plant Science. 9:Article 1323. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389fpls.2018.01323.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• FSANZ. 2021. Food Standards Australia New Zealand. Genetically modified foods; [accessed 28 December 2022]. https://www.foodstandards.govt.nz/consumer/gmfood/Pages/default.aspx.
   Google Scholar
• FSANZ. 2022. Food Standards Australia New Zealand. GM Foods in Australia and New Zealand; [accessed 28 December 2022]. https://www.foodstandards.gov.au/consumer/gmfood/Documents/GM%20Foods%20in%20Australia%20and%20New%20Zealand.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Fujimoto R, Uezono K, Ishikura S, Osabe K, Peacock WJ, Dennis ES. 2018. Recent research on the mechanism of heterosis is important for crop and vegetable breeding systems. Breeding Science. 68:145–158. doi:10.1270/jsbbs.17155.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gadaleta A, Giancaspro A, Blechl AE, Blanco A. 2008. A transgenic durum wheat line that is free of marker genes and expresses 1DY10. Journal of Cereal Science. 48:439–445. doi:10.1016/j.jcs.2007.11.005.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gaharwar US, Verma A, Singh R, Prasad T, Rajamani P. 2021. Health risks and environmental concerns of GM crop adoption. In: Singh P, Borthakur A, Singh AA, Kumar A, Singh KK, editors. Policy issues in genetically modified crops. Academic Press; p. 371–400. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-820780-2.00017-0
   Google Scholar
• Gao H, Gadlage MJ, Lafitte HR, Lenderts B, Yang M, Schroder M, Farrell J, Snopek K, Peterson D, Feigenbutz L. 2020. Superior field performance of waxy corn engineered using CRISPR–Cas9. Nature Biotechnology. 38:579–581. doi:10.1038/s41587-020-0444-0.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gayon J, Zallen DT. 1998. The role of the vilmorin company in the promotion and diffusion of the experimental science of heredity in France, 1840-1920. Journal of the History of Biology. 31:241–262. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4331479.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• GDM Seeds. 2022. The Colombian government approves soy edited by GDM with low presence of sugars; [accessed 19 January 2023]. https://www.gdmseeds.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/ING-Soja-Colombia.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Gelvin SB. 2000. Agrobacterium and plant genes involved in T-DNA transfer and integration. Annual Review of Plant Physiology and Plant Molecular Biology. 51:223–256.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• George AL, Mayden RL. 2005. Species concepts and the Endangered Species Act: how a valid biological definition of species enhances the legal protection of biodiversity. Natural Resources Journal. 45:369–407. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24888981.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Germanà MA. 2011. Anther culture for haploid and doubled haploid production. Plant Cell, Tissue and Organ Culture (PCTOC). 104:283–300. doi:10.1007/s11240-010-9852-z.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ghose K, Yuan N, Dampanaboina L, Mendu V. 2022. Cisgenesis in the era of genome editing and modern plant biotechnology. In: Chaurasia A, Kole C, editors. Cisgenic crops: potential and prospects. concepts and strategies in plant sciences. Cham: Springer; p. 257–279. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-06628-3_13
   Google Scholar
• Glenn KC, Alsop B, Bell E, Goley M, Jenkinson J, Liu B, Martin C, Parrott W, Souder C, Sparks O, et al. 2017. Bringing new plant varieties to market: plant breeding and selection practices advance beneficial characteristics while minimizing unintended changes. Crop Science. 57:2906–2921. doi:10.2135/cropsci2017.03.0199.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gocal G. 2015. Non-transgenic trait development in crop plants using oligo-directed mutagenesis: cibus’ rapid trait development system. In: Eaglesham A, Hardy RW, editors. NABC report 26. New DNA-editing approaches: methods, applications and policy for agriculture. Ithaca (NY): North American Agricultural Biotechnology Council; p. 97–105.
   Google Scholar
• Gocal GFW, Schopke C, Beetham PR. 2015. Oligo-mediated targeting gene editing. In: Zhang F, Puchta H, Thompson JG, editors. Advances in new technology for targeted modification of plant genomes. New York, NY: Springer; p. 73–89.
   Google Scholar
• Gomez MA, Lin DZ, Moll T, Chauhan RD, Hayden L, Renninger K, Beyene G, Taylor NJ, Carrington J, Staskawicz B, Bart R. 2019. Simultaneous CRISPR/Cas9-mediated editing of cassava eIF4E isoforms nCBP-1 and nCBP-2 reduces cassava brown streak disease symptom severity and incidence. Plant Biotechnology Journal. 17:421–434. doi:10.1111/pbi.12987.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gottesfeld JM, Neely L, Trauger JW, Baird EE, Dervan PB. 1997. Regulation of gene expression by small molecules. Nature. 387:202–205. doi:10.1038/387202a0.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grant PR. 1972. Convergent and divergent character displacement. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society. 4:39–68. doi:10.1111/j.1095-8312.1972.tb00690.x.
   Google Scholar
• Grattapaglia D. 2022. Twelve years into genomic selection in forest trees: climbing the slope of enlightenment of marker assisted tree breeding. Forests. 13:Article 1554. doi:10.3390/f13101554.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gregorowius D, Lindemann-Matthies P, Huppenbauer M. 2012. Ethical discourse on the use of genetically modified crops: a review of academic publications in the fields of ecology and environmental ethics. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics. 25:265–293. doi:10.1007/s10806-011-9330-6.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grewal D, Manito C, Bartolome V. 2011. Doubled haploids generated through anther culture from crosses of elite indica and japonica cultivars and/or lines of rice: large-scale production, agronomic performance, and molecular characterization. Crop Science. 51:2544. doi:10.2135/cropsci2011.04.0236.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gross BL, Henk AD, Forsline PL, Richards CM, Volk GM. 2012. Identification of interspecific hybrids among domesticated apple and its wild relatives. Tree Genetics & Genomes. 8:1223–1235. doi:10.1007/s11295-012-0509-4.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gupta PK, Kumar J, Mir RR, Kumar A. 2010. Marker-assisted selection as a component of conventional plant breeding. Plant Breeding Reviews. 33:145–217.
   Google Scholar
• Hake S, Ross-Ibarra J. 2015. The natural history of model organisms: genetic, evolutionary and plant breeding insights from the domestication of maize. eLife. 4:Article e05861. doi:10.7554/eLife.05861.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hallauer AR. 2011. Evolution of plant breeding. Crop Breeding and Applied Biotechnology. 11:197–206. doi:10.1590/S1984-70332011000300001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Han J, Guo B, Guo Y, Zhang B, Wang X, Qiu LJ. 2019. Creation of early flowering germplasm of soybean by CRISPR/Cas9 technology. Frontiers in Plant Science. 10:Article 1446. doi:10.3389/fpls.2019.01446.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hanna WW, Bashaw EC. 1987. Apomixis: its identification and use in plant breeding. Crop Science. 27:1136–1139. doi:10.2135/cropsci1987.0011183X002700060010x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hartzell-Nichols L. 2013. From ‘the’ precautionary principle to precautionary principles. Ethics, Policy & Environment. 16:308–320. doi:10.1080/21550085.2013.844569.
   Google Scholar
• Hasan N, Choudhary S, Naaz N, Sharma N, Laskar RA. 2021. Lipase from rhizopus oryzae R1: in-depth characterization, immobilization, and evaluation in biodiesel production. Journal of Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology. 19:1–26. doi:10.1186/s43141-020-00094-y.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haun W, Coffman A, Clasen BM, Demorest ZL, Lowy A, Ray E, Retterath A, Stoddard T, Juillerat A, Cedrone F. 2014. Improved soybean oil quality by targeted mutagenesis of the fatty acid desaturase 2 gene family. Plant Biotechnology Journal. 12:934–940. doi:10.1111/pbi.12201.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haverkort AJ, Struik PC, Visser RGF, Jacobsen E. 2009. Applied biotechnology to combat late blight in potato caused by phytophthora infestans. Potato Research. 52:249–264.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hayes AW. 2005. The precautionary principle. Arhiv za Higijenu Rada i Toksikologiju. 56:161–166. [accessed 26 February 2023]. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/14375077.pdf.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hefferon K. 2022. Cis genesis of crops. In: Chaurasia A, Kole C, editors. Cisgenic crops: potential and prospects. concepts and strategies in plant sciences. Cham: Springer; p. 67–78. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-06628-3_4
   Google Scholar
• Heffner EL, Lorenz AJ, Jannink J-L, Sorrells ME. 2010. Plant breeding with genomic selection: gain per unit time and cost. Crop Science. 50:1681–1690. doi:10.2135/cropsci2009.11.0662.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heffner EL, Sorrells ME, Jannink JL. 2009. Genomic selection for crop improvement. Crop Science. 49:1–12. doi:10.2135/cropsci2008.08.0512.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Henikoff S, Till BJ, Comai L. 2004. TILLING. traditional mutagenesis meets functional genomics. Plant Physiology. 135:630–636. doi:10.1104/pp.104.041061.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Herman RA, Gaffney J, Storer NP. 2020. Enlightened oversight of genetically engineered crops for the next generation. Agricultural & Environmental Letters. 5:e20004. doi:10.1002/ael2.20004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Herman RA, Price WD. 2013. Unintended compositional changes in genetically modified (GM) crops: 20 years of research. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. 61:11695–11701. doi:10.1021/jf400135r.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Herrera-Estrella L, Simpson J, Martínez-Trujillo M. 2004. Transgenic plants. In: Peña L, editor. Transgenic plants: methods and protocols. Methods in molecular biology™. Humana Press; 286 p. 003–032. doi:10.1385/1-59259-827-7:003
   Google Scholar
• Herring R. 2008. Opposition to transgenic technologies: ideology, interests and collective action frames. Nature Reviews Genetics. 9:458–463. doi:10.1038/nrg2338.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heslot N, Jannink J-L, Sorrells ME. 2015. Perspectives for genomic selection applications and research in plants. Crop Science. 55:1–12. doi:10.2135/cropsci2014.03.0249.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hickey LT, Hafeez N, Robinson H, Jackson SA, Leal-Bertioli S, Tester M, Gao C, Godwin ID, Hayes BJ, Wulff BB. 2019. Breeding crops to feed 10 billion. Nature Biotechnology. 37:744–754. doi:10.1038/s41587-019-0152-9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hochholdinger F, Baldauf JA. 2018. Heterosis in plants. Current Biology. 28:R1089–R1092.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holme IB, Dionisio G, Brinch-Pedersen H, Wendt T, Madsen CK, Vincze E, Holm PB. 2012. Cisgenic barley with improved phytase activity. Plant Biotechnology Journal. 10:237–247.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holme IB, Madsen CK, Wendt T, Brinch-Pedersen H. 2020. Horizontal stacking of PAPhy_a cisgenes in barley is a potent strategy for increasing mature grain phytase activity. Frontiers in Plant Science. 11:Article 592139. doi:10.3389/fpls.2020.592139.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holme IB, Wendt T, Holm PB. 2013. Intragenesis and cisgenesis as alternatives to transgenic crop development. Plant Biotechnology Journal. 11:395–407. doi:10.1111/pbi.12055.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hsu PD, Lander ES, Zhang F. 2014. Development and applications of CRISPR-Cas9 for genome engineering. Cell. 157:1262–1278. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2014.05.010.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hu J, Chen B, Zhao J, Zhang F, Xie T, Xu K, Gao G, Yan G, Li H, Li L, Ji G, et al. 2022. Genomic selection and genetic architecture of agronomic traits during modern rapeseed breeding. Nature Genetics. 54:694–704. doi:10.1038/s41588-022-01055-6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hu J, Gao C. 2023. CRISPR-edited plants by grafting. Nature Biotechnology. [accessed 12 March 2023]. doi:10.1038/s41587-022-01516-7.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huang C-Y, Jin H. 2022. Coordinated epigenetic regulation in plants: a potent managerial tool to conquer biotic stress. Frontiers in Plant Science. 12: Article 795274. doi:10.3389/fpls.2021.795274.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huang H, Cui T, Zhang L, Yang Q, Yang Y, Xie K, Fan C, Zhou Y. 2020. Modifications of fatty acid profile through targeted mutation at BnaFAD2 gene with CRISPR/Cas9-mediated gene editing in brassica napus. Theoretical and Applied Genetics. 133:2401–2411. doi:10.1007/s00122-020-03607-y.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huidobro C, Fernandez AF, Fraga MF. 2013. Aging epigenetics: causes and consequences. Molecular Aspects of Medicine. 34:765–781. doi:10.1016/j.mam.2012.06.006.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• IAEA. 2022. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Mutant Variety Database; [accessed 29 December 2022]. https://nucleus.iaea.org/sites/mvd/SitePages/Home.aspx#.
   Google Scholar
• Ipsos. 2019. Global trust in professions – Who do global citizens trust?; [accessed 30 December 2022]. https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2019-09/global-trust-in-professions-trust-worthiness-index-2019.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Irvine JE. 1999. Saccharum species as horticultural classes. Theoretical and Applied Genetics. 98(2):186–194. doi:10.1007/s001220051057.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ISAAA database. 2023. GM Approval Database. https://www.isaaa.org/gmapprovaldatabase/.
   Google Scholar
• Jacobsen SE, Sørensen M, Pedersen SM, Weiner J. 2013. Feeding the world: genetically modified crops versus agricultural biodiversity. Agronomy for Sustainable Development. 33:651–662. doi:10.1007/s13593-013-0138-9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jankowicz-Cieslak J, Till BJ. 2015. Forward and reverse genetics in crop breeding. In: Al-Khayri J, Jain S, Johnson D, editors. Advances in plant breeding strategies: breeding, biotechnology and molecular tools. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing; p. 215–240. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-22521-0_8.
   Google Scholar
• Jiang GL. 2013. Molecular markers and marker-assisted breeding in plants. In: Andersen SB, editor. Plant breeding from laboratories to fields. Rijeka (Croatia): InTechOpen; Chapter 3, p. 45–83.
   Google Scholar
• Jin S, Clark B, Kuznesof S, Lin X, Frewer LJ. 2019. Synthetic biology applied in the agrifood sector: public perceptions, attitudes and implications for future studies. Trends in Food Science & Technology. 91:454–466. doi:10.1016/j.tifs.2019.07.025.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jo KR, Kim CJ, Kim SJ, Kim TY, Bergervoet M, Jongsma MA, Visser RG, Jacobsen E, Vossen JH. 2014. Development of late blight resistant potatoes by cisgene stacking. BMC Biotechnology. 14: Article 50. doi:10.1186/1472-6750-14-50.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones MGK, Fosu-Nyarko J, Iqbal S, Adeel M, Romero-Aldemita R, Arujanan M, Kasai M, Wei X, Prasetya B, Nugroho S, et al. 2022. Enabling trade in gene-edited produce in Asia and australasia: the developing regulatory landscape and future perspectives. Plants. 11. doi:10.3390/plants11192538
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jorasch P. 2020. Potential, challenges, and threats for the application of new breeding techniques by the private plant breeding sector in the EU. Frontiers in Plant Science. 11:Article 582011. doi:10.3389/fpls.2020.582011.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jouanin A, Boyd L, Visser RG, Smulders MJ. 2018. Development of wheat with hypoimmunogenic gluten obstructed by the gene editing policy in Europe. Frontiers in Plant Science. 9:Article 1523. doi:10.3389/fpls.2018.01523.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jouanin A, Gilissen LJ, Schaart JG, Leigh FJ, Cockram J, Wallington EJ, Boyd LA, van den Broeck HC, van der Meer IM, America AH, Visser RG. 2020. CRISPR/cas9 gene editing of gluten in wheat to reduce gluten content and exposure—reviewing methods to screen for coeliac safety. Frontiers in Nutrition. 7:Article 51. doi:10.3389/fnut.2020.00051.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jouanin A, Schaart JG, Boyd LA, Cockram J, Leigh FJ, Bates R, Wallington EJ, Visser RG, Smulders MJ. 2019. Outlook for coeliac disease patients: towards bread wheat with hypoimmunogenic gluten by gene editing of α- and γ-gliadin gene families. BMC Plant Biology. 19:Article 333. doi:10.1186/s12870-019-1889-5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Joung J, Sander J. 2013. TALENs: a widely applicable technology for targeted genome editing. Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology. 14:49–55. doi:10.1038/nrm3486.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jumbo M, Weldekidan T, Holland JB, Hawk JA. 2011. Comparison of conventional, modified single seed descent, and doubled haploid breeding methods for maize inbred line development using germplasm enhancement of maize breeding crosses. Crop Science. 51:1534–1543. doi:10.2135/cropsci2010.10.0594.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jung JH, Altpeter F. 2016. TALEN mediated targeted mutagenesis of the caffeic acid O-methyltransferase in highly polyploid sugarcane improves cell wall composition for production of bioethanol. Plant Molecular Biology. 92:131–142. doi:10.1007/s11103-016-0499-y.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kabat GC. 2017. Taking distrust of science seriously. EMBO Reports. 18:1052–1055. doi:10.15252/embr.201744294.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kanazawa A, Inaba JI, Shimura H, Otagaki S, Tsukahara S, Matsuzawa A, Bm K, Goto K, Masuta C. 2011. Virus-mediated efficient induction of epigenetic modifications of endogenous genes with phenotypic changes in plants. The Plant Journal. 65:156–168. doi:10.1111/j.1365-313X.2010.04401.x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kankanala P, Nandety RS, Mysore KS. 2019. Genomics of plant disease resistance in legumes. Frontiers in Plant Science. 10:Article 1345. doi:10.3389/fpls.2019.01345.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kannan B, Jung JH, Moxley GW, Lee S-M, Altpeter F. 2018. TALEN-mediated targeted mutagenesis of more than 100 COMT copies/alleles in highly polyploid sugarcane improves saccharification efficiency without compromising biomass yield. Plant Biotechnology Journal. 16:856–866. doi:10.1111/pbi.12833.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kemesyte V, Statkeviciute G, Brazauskas G. 2017. Perennial ryegrass yield performance under abiotic stress. Crop Science. 57:1935–1940. doi:10.2135/cropsci2016.10.0864.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kharkwal MC. 2012. A brief history of plant mutagenesis. In: Shu QY, Forster BP, Nakagawa H, editors. Plant mutation breeding and biotechnology. Wallingford: CABI; p. 21–30.
   Google Scholar
• Kim JY, Kim JH, Jang YH, Yu J, Bae S, Kim M-S, Cho Y-G, Jung YJ, Kang KK. 2023. Transcriptome and metabolite profiling of tomato SGR-knockout null lines using the CRISPR/Cas9 system. International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 24:Article 109. doi:10.3390/ijms24010109.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim Y-J, Zhang D. 2018. Molecular control of male fertility for crop hybrid breeding. Trends in Plant Science. 23:53–65. doi:10.1016/j.tplants.2017.10.001.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kodym A, Afza R. 2003. Physical and chemical mutagenesis. In: Grotewol E, editor. Plant functional genomics. Methods in molecular biology™, vol 236. Totowa, NJ, USA: Humana Press; p. 189–204. doi:10.1385/1-59259-413-1:189.
   Google Scholar
• Köferle A, Stricker SH, Beck S. 2015. Brave new epigenomes: the dawn of epigenetic engineering. Genome Medicine. 7:Article 59. doi:10.1186/s13073-015-0185-8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Korban SS. 1986. Interspecific hybridization in Malus. HortScience. 21:41–48. https://journals.ashs.org/hortsci/view/journals/hortsci/21/1/article-p41_b.xml.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kouhen M, García-Caparrós P, Twyman RM, Abdelly C, Mahmoudi H, Schillberg S, Debez A. 2022. Improving environmental stress resilience in crops by genome editing: insights from extremophile plants. Critical Reviews in Biotechnology. [accessed 12 March 2023]. doi:10.1080/07388551.2022.2042481.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koul B. 2022. Cisgenics and crop improvement. In: Koul B, editor. Cisgenics and transgenics. Singapore: Springer; p. 107–129. doi:10.1007/978-981-19-2119-3_3
   Google Scholar
• Kour J, Sangeeta DH, Tomar M, Bala K, Mishra RC. 2022. Genetically modified plant and animal foods. In: Kour J, Sharma V, Khanday I, editors. Genetically modified crops and food security: commercial, ethical and health considerations. Chapter1. Taylor & Francis. doi:10.4324/9781003278566-1.
   Google Scholar
• Krishna VV, Qaim M. 2008. Consumer attitudes toward GM food and pesticide residues in India. Review of Agricultural Economics. 30:233–251. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9353.2008.00402.x.
   Google Scholar
• Kuluev BR, Gumerova GR, Mikhaylova EV, Gerashchenkov GA, Rozhnova NA, Vershinina ZR, Khyazev AV, Matniyazov RT, Baymiev A, Baymiev A, Chemeris AV. 2019. Delivery of CRISPR/Cas components into higher plant cells for genome editing. Russian Journal of Plant Physiology. 66:694–706. doi:10.1134/S102144371905011X.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kumar J, Kumar A, Gupta S, Kumar D, DePauw S. 2022. Reverse genetic approaches for breeding nutrient-rich and climate-resilient cereal and food legume crops. Heredity. 128:473–496. doi:10.1038/s41437-022-00513-5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kumar K, Gambhir G, Dass A, Tripathi AK, Singh A, Jha AK, Yadava P, Choudhary M, Rakshit S. 2020. Genetically modified crops: current status and future prospects. Planta. 251: Article 91. doi:10.1007/s00425-020-03372-8.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kumar S. 2019. Epigenetics and epigenomics for crop improvement: current opinion. Advances in Biotechnology and Microbiology. 14:Article 555879. doi:10.19080/AIBM.2019.14.555879.
   Google Scholar
• Kwan BD, Seligmann B, Nguyen TD, Franke J, Dang TT. 2023. Leveraging synthetic biology and metabolic engineering to overcome obstacles in plant pathway elucidation. Current Opinion in Plant Biology. 71: Article 102330. doi:10.1016/j.pbi.2022.102330.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ladics GS. 2019. Assessment of the potential allergenicity of genetically-engineered food crops. Journal of Immunotoxicology. 16:43–53. doi:10.1080/1547691X.2018.1533904.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laird NM, Lange C. 2011. Principles of inheritance: Mendel’s laws and genetic models. In: The fundamentals of modern statistical genetics. New York: Statistics for Biology and Health. Springer; p. 15–30. doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-7338-2_2
   Google Scholar
• Lamichhane S, Thapa S. 2022. Advances from conventional to modern plant breeding methodologies. Plant Breeding and Biotechnology. 10:1–14. doi:10.9787/PBB.2022.10.1.1.
   Google Scholar
• Lassoued R, Macall DM, Smyth SJ, Phillips PW, Hesseln H. 2020. How should we regulate products of new breeding techniques? Opinion of surveyed experts in plant biotechnology. Biotechnology Reports. 26: Article e00460. doi:10.1016/j.btre.2020.e00460.
   Google Scholar
• Laughnan JR, Gabay-Laughnan S. 1983. Cytoplasmic male sterility in maize. Annual Review of Genetics. 17:27–48.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Layne RE, Sherman WB. 1986. Interspecific hybridization of Prunus. HortScience. 21:48–51. https://journals.ashs.org/hortsci/view/journals/hortsci/21/1/article-p48.xml.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee K, Zhang Y, Kleinstiver BP, Guo JA, Aryee MJ, Miller J, Malzahn A, Zarecor S, Lawrence-Dil CJ, Joung JK. 2019a. Activities and specificities of CRISPR/Cas9 and Cas12a nucleases for targeted mutagenesis in maize. Plant Biotechnology Journal. 17:362–372. doi:10.1111/pbi.12982.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee M. 2006. The phenotypic and genotypic eras of plant breeding. In: Lamkey KR, Lee M, editors. Plant breeding: the Arnel R. Hallauer International Symposium. Ames: Blackwell Publishing; p. 213–218.
   Google Scholar
• Lee MA, Howard-Andrews V, Chester M. 2019b. Resistance of multiple diploid and tetraploid perennial ryegrass (lolium perenne L.) varieties to three projected drought scenarios for the UK in 2080. Agronomy. 9: Article 159. doi:10.3390/agronomy9030159.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lelieveld H, Andersen V. 2020. Debunking misinformation about food. Scientific Bulletin. Series F. Biotechnologies. 23:237–247.
   Google Scholar
• Lema M. 2021. Breaking barriers with breeding: a primer on new breeding innovations for food security. ISAAA Brief. 56:23–31.
   Google Scholar
• Lenaerts B, Collard BCY, Demont M. 2019. Review: improving global food security through accelerated plant breeding. Plant Science. 278: Article 110207. doi:10.1016/j.plantsci.2019.110207.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levings CS. 3rd. 1993. Thoughts on cytoplasmic male sterility in cms-T maize. The Plant Cell. 5:1285–1290. doi:10.2307/3869781.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lewontin RC. 2000. The maturing of capitalist agriculture: farmer as proletarian. In: Magdoff F, Foster JB, Buttel FH, editors. Hungry for profit: the agribusiness threat to farmers, food, and the environment. New York: Publisher: Monthly Review Press; p. 93–106. https://books.google.co.nz/books?id = Iu78TKUEPv4C.
   Google Scholar
• Li A, Jia S, Yobi A, Ge Z, Sato SJ, Zhang C, Angelovici R, Clemente TE, Holding DR. 2018. Editing of an alpha-kafirin gene family increases, digestibility and protein quality in sorghum. Plant Physiology. 177:1425–1438. doi:10.1104/pp.18.00200.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li C, Unver T, Zhang B. 2017. A high-efficiency CRISPR/Cas9 system for targeted mutagenesis in cotton (gossypium hirsutum L.). Scientific Reports. 7: Article 43902. doi:10.1038/srep43902.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li J, Scarano A, Mora Gonzalez N, D’Orso F, Yue Y, Nemeth K, Saalbach G, Hill L, Oliveira Martins C, Moran R, et al. 2022. Biofortified tomatoes provide a new route to vitamin D sufficiency. Nature Plants. 8:611–616. doi:10.1038/s41477-022-01154-6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li T, Liu B, Spalding M, Weeks DP, Yang B. 2012. High-efficiency TALEN-based gene editing produces disease-resistant rice. Nature Biotechnology. 30:390–392. doi:10.1038/nbt.2199.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li Z, Liu Z-B, Xing A, Moon BP, Koellhoffer JP, Huang L, Ward RT, Falco CE, Cigan SC, M A. 2015. Cas9-guide RNA directed genome editing in soybean. Plant Physiology. 169:960–970. doi:10.1104/pp.15.00783.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li Z, Moon BP, Xing A, Liu ZB, McCardell RP, Damude HG, Falco SC. 2010. Stacking multiple transgenes at a selected genomic site via repeated recombinase-mediated DNA cassette exchanges. Plant Physiology. 154:622–631. doi:10.1104/pp.110.160093.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liang Z, Chen K, Li T, Zhang Y, Wang Y, Zhao Q, Liu J, Zhang H, Liu C, Ran Y, Gao C. 2017. Efficient DNA-free genome editing of bread wheat using CRISPR/Cas9 ribonucleoprotein complexes. Nature Communications. 8: Article 14261. doi:10.1038/ncomms14261.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu B, Li M, Cheng L, Liang D, Zou Y, Ma F. 2012. Influence of rootstock on antioxidant system in leaves and roots of young apple trees in response to drought stress. Plant Growth Regulation. 67:247–256. doi:10.1007/s10725-012-9683-5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu D. 2009. Design of gene constructs for transgenic maize. In: Scott MP, editor. Transgenic maize. Methods in molecular biology™, vol 526. Totowa, NJ: Humana Press; p. 3–20. doi:10.1007/978-1-59745-494-0_1.
   Google Scholar
• Losert D, Maurer HP, Marulanda JJ, Würschum T. 2017. Phenotypic and genotypic analyses of diversity and breeding progress in European triticale (× triticosecale wittmack). Plant Breeding. 136:18–27. doi:10.1111/pbr.12433.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Losey JE, Rayor LS, Carter ME. 1999. Transgenic pollen harms monarch larvae. Nature. 399:214. doi:10.1038/20338.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Louwaars N. 2019. Food safety and plant breeding - why are there no problems in practice? In: Urazbaeva A, Szajkowska A, Wernaart BFW, Franssens NT, Vaskoska RS, editors. The functional field of food law. Wageningen, The Netherlands: Wageningen Academic Press Publishers; p. 89–101.
   Google Scholar
• Lübberstedt T, Frei UK. 2012. Application of doubled haploids for target gene fixation in backcross programmes of maize. Plant Breeding. 131:449–452. doi:10.1111/j.1439-0523.2011.01948.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lucht JM. 2015. Public acceptance of plant biotechnology and GM crops. Viruses. 7:4254–4281. doi:10.3390/v7082819.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lusser M, Davies HV. 2013. Comparative regulatory approaches for groups of new plant breeding techniques. New Biotechnology. 30:437–446. doi:10.1016/j.nbt.2013.02.004.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lynas M, Adams J, Conrow J. 2022. Misinformation in the media: global coverage of GMOs 2019-2021. GM Crops & Food. [accessed 12 March 2023]. doi:10.1080/21645698.2022.2140568.
   Google Scholar
• Ma X, Zhang Q, Zhu Q, Liu W, Chen Y, Qiu R, Wang B, Yang Z, Li H, Lin Y, et al. 2015. A robust CRISPR/Cas9 system for convenient, high-efficiency multiplex genome editing in monocot and dicot plants. Molecular Plant. 8:1274–1284. doi:10.1016/j.molp.2015.04.007.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mabry ME, Turner-Hissong SD, Gallagher EY, McAlvay AC, An H, Edger PP, Moore JD, Pink DAC, Teakle GR, Stevens CJ, et al. 2021. The evolutionary history of wild, domesticated, and feral Brassica oleracea (Brassicaceae). Molecular Biology and Evolution. 38:4419–4434. doi:10.1093/molbev/msab183.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacFie H. 2007. Consumer-led food product development. Woodhead: Woodhead Publishing Ltd, Cambridge.
   Google Scholar
• Maghari BM, Ardekani AM. 2011. Genetically modified foods and social concerns. Avicenna Journal of Medical Biotechnology. 3:109–117.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Malnoy M, Viola R, Jung MH, Koo OJ, Kim S, Kim JS, Velasco R, Nagamangala Kanchiswamy C. 2016. DNA-free genetically edited grapevine and apple protoplast using CRISPR/Cas9 ribonucleoproteins. Frontiers in Plant Science. 7: Article 1904. doi:10.3389/fpls.2016.01904.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mao Y, Botella JR, Liu Y, Zhu J-K. 2019. Gene editing in plants: progress and challenges. National Science Review. 6:421–437. doi:10.1093/nsr/nwz005.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marchant GE, Stevens YA. 2015. A new window of opportunity to reject process-based biotechnology regulation. GM Crops & Food. 6:233–242.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Margolis H. 1997. Dealing with isk: why the public and the experts disagree on environmental issues. United Kingdom: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Margueron R, Reinberg D. 2010. Chromatin structure and the inheritance of epigenetic information. Nature Reviews Genetics. 11:285–296. doi:10.1038/nrg2752.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Markets and Markets. 2022. Genome editing market size. Market Research Report Code BT3380, published November 2021; [accessed 1 January 2023]. https://www.marketsandmarkets.com/Market-Reports/genome-editing-engineering-market-231037000.html.
   Google Scholar
• Mason AS, Batley J. 2015. Creating new interspecific hybrid and polyploid crops. Trends in Biotechnology. 33:436–441. doi:10.1016/j.tibtech.2015.06.004.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Massel K, Hintzsche J, Restall J, Kerr ED, Schulz BL, Godwin ID. 2023. CRISPR-knockout of β-kafirin in sorghum does not recapitulate the grain quality of natural mutants. Planta. 257:8. doi:10.1007/s00425-022-04038-3.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mather K. 1955. The genetical basis of heterosis. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B-Biological Sciences. 144:143–150.
   Google Scholar
• Matsuoka Y, Vigouroux Y, Goodman MM, Sanchez GJ, Buckler E, Doebley J. 2002. A single domestication for maize shown by multilocus microsatellite genotyping. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 99:6080–6084. doi:10.1073/pnas.052125199.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mayo O. 1987. The theory of plant breeding. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mba C. 2013. Induced mutations unleash the potentials of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture. Agronomy. 3:200–231. doi:10.3390/agronomy3010200.
   Google Scholar
• Mba C, Afza R, Bado S, Jain SM. 2010. Induced mutagenesis in plants using physical and chemical agents. In: Davey MR, Anthony P, editors. Plant cell culture: essential methods. Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell; p. 111–130.
   Google Scholar
• McCallum CM, Comai L, Greene EA, Henikoff S. 2000. Targeted screening for induced mutations. Nature Biotechnology. 18:455–457. doi:10.1038/74542.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McGuinness Institute. 2013. An overview of genetic modification in New Zealand 1973–2013: the first forty years. Project 2058; Report 16, September 2013, p. 140; [accessed 1 January 2023] http://www.mcguinnessinstitute.org/project-2058-reports/.
   Google Scholar
• McHughen A. 2013. GM crops and foods. GM Crops & Food. 4:172–182. doi:10.4161/gmcr.26532.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Menz J, Modrzejewski D, Hartung F, Wilhelm R, Sprink T. 2020. Genome edited crops touch the market: a view on the global development and regulatory environment. Frontiers in Plant Science. 11: Article 586027. doi:10.3389/fpls.2020.586027.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mergoum M, Sapkota S, ElDoliefy AEA, Naraghi SM, Pirseyedi S, Alamri MS, AbuHammad W. 2019. Triticale (x Triticosecale Wittmack) breeding. In: Al-Khayri J, Jain S, Johnson D, editors. Advances in plant breeding strategies: cereals. Cham: Springer; p. 405–451. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-23108-8_11
   Google Scholar
• Merrick LF, Herr AW, Sandhu KS, Lozada DN, Carter AH. 2022a. Utilizing genomic selection for wheat population development and improvement. Agronomy. 12: Article 522. doi:10.3390/agronomy12020522.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Merrick LF, Herr AW, Sandhu KS, Lozada DN, Carter AH. 2022b. Optimizing plant breeding programs for genomic selection. Agronomy. 12: Article 714. doi:10.3390/agronomy12030714.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meuwissen THE, Hayes BJ, Goddard ME. 2001. Prediction of total genetic value using genome-wide dense marker maps. Genetics. 157:1819–1829. doi:10.1093/genetics/157.4.1819.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miki B, McHugh S. 2004. Selectable marker genes in transgenic plants: applications, alternatives and biosafety. Journal of Biotechnology. 107:193–232. doi:10.1016/j.jbiotec.2003.10.011.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miles JW. 2007. Apomixis for cultivar development in tropical forage grasses. Crop Science. 47:S-238–S-249. doi:10.2135/cropsci2007.04.0016IPBS.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miroshnichenko D, Timerbaev V, Okuneva A, Klementyeva A, Sidorova T, Pushin A, Dolgov S. 2020. Enhancement of resistance to PVY in intragenic marker-free potato plants by RNAi-mediated silencing of eIF4E translation initiation factors. Plant Cell, Tissue and Organ Culture (PCTOC). 140:691–705. doi:10.1007/s11240-019-01746-9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mishra R, Rao GJN. 2016. In-vitro androgenesis in rice: advantages, constraints and future prospects. Rice Science. 23:57–68. doi:10.1016/j.rsci.2016.02.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Modrzejewski D, Hartung F, Sprink T, Krause D, Kohl C, Wilhelm R. 2019. What is the available evidence for the range of applications of genome-editing as a new tool for plant trait modification and the potential occurrence of associated off-target effects: a systematic map. Environmental Evidence. 8: Article 27. doi:10.1186/s13750-019-0171-5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mohanta TK, Bashir T, Hashem A, Abd_Allah EF, Bae H. 2017. Genome editing tools in plants. Genes. 8: Article 27. doi:10.3390/genes8120399.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moose SP, Mumm RH. 2008. Molecular plant breeding as the foundation for 21st century crop improvement. Plant Physiology. 147:969–977. doi:10.1104/pp.108.118232.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MPI. 2021. Ministry for Primary Industries. Labelling requirements for genetically modified food; [accessed 28 December 2022]. https://www.mpi.govt.nz/food-business/labelling-composition-food-drinks/specific-product-labelling/labelling-requirements-for-genetically-modified-food/.
   Google Scholar
• Nadeem MA, Nawaz MA, Shahid MO, Doğan Y, Comertpay G, Yıldız M, Hatipoğlu R, Ahmad F, Alsaleh A, Labhane N. 2018. DNA molecular markers in plant breeding: current status and recent advancements in genomic selection and genome editing. Biotechnology & Biotechnological Equipment. 32:261–285. doi:10.1080/13102818.2017.1400401.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nair A, Fischer ARH, Moscatelli S, Socaciu C, Kohl C, Stetkiewicz SS, Menary J, Baekelandt A, Nanda AK, Jorasch P, et al. 2023. European consumer and societal stakeholders’ response to crop improvements and new plant breeding techniques. Food and Energy Security. 12: Article e417. doi:10.1002/fes3.417.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nair RM. 2004. Developing tetraploid perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne L.) populations. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research. 47:45–49. doi:10.1080/00288233.2004.9513569.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• NASEM. 2016. Genetically engineered crops: experiences and prospects. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. doi:10.17226/23395.
   Google Scholar
• New Zealand Legislation. 1996. Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996; [accessed 2021 Dec 5]. https://legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1996/0030/latest/DLM381228.html.
   Google Scholar
• Nicolia A, Manzo A, Veronesi F, Rosellini D. 2014. An overview of the last 10 years of genetically engineered crop safety research. Critical Reviews in Biotechnology. 34:77–88. doi:10.3109/07388551.2013.823595.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Niu C, Li H, Jiang L, Yan M, Li C, Geng D, Xie Y, Yan Y, Shen X, Chen P, Dong J. 2019. Genome-wide identification of drought-responsive microRNAs in two sets of Malus from interspecific hybrid progenies. Horticulture Research. 6: Article 75. doi:10.1038/s41438-019-0157-z.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Novotny E. 2018. Retraction by corruption: the 2012 Séralini paper. Journal of Biological Physics and Chemistry. 18:32–56. doi:10.4024/19NO17F.jbpc.18.01.
   Google Scholar
• Nyquist WE, Baker RJ. 1991. Estimation of heritability and prediction of selection response in plant populations. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences. 10:235–322. doi:10.1080/07352689109382313.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• OGTR. 2021. Office of the Gene Technology Regulator. Technical review of the Gene Technology Regulations 2001 Decision Regulation Impact Statement; [accessed 28 December 2022]. https://www.ogtr.gov.au/sites/default/files/files/2021-07/decision_ris.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Oh TJ, May GD. 2001. Oligonucleotide-directed plant gene targeting. Current Opinion in Biotechnology. 12:169–172. doi:10.1016/S0958-1669(00)00194-4.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O'Keefe M, Perrault S, Halpern J, Ikemoto L, Yarborough M. 2015 “Editing” genes: a case study about how language matters in bioethics. The American Journal of Bioethics. 15:3–10. doi:10.1080/15265161.2015.1103804.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Okuzaki A, Toriyama K. 2004. Chimeric RNA/DNA oligonucleotide-directed gene targeting in rice. Plant Cell Reports. 22:509–512. doi:10.1007/s00299-003-0698-2.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oladosu Y, Rafii MY, Abdullah N, Hussin G, Ramli A, Rahim HA, Miah G, Usman M. 2016. Principle and application of plant mutagenesis in crop improvement: a review. Biotechnology & Biotechnological Equipment. 30:1–16. doi:10.1080/13102818.2015.1087333.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oreskes N, Conway EM. 2010. Merchants of doubt: how a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming. London (UK): Bloomsbury.
   Google Scholar
• Ortiz R. 2020. Göte Turesson’s research legacy to hereditas: from the ecotype concept in plants to the analysis of landraces’ diversity in crops. Hereditas. 157:44. doi:10.1186/s41065-020-00159-5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ospovat D. 1995. The development of Darwin's theory: natural history, natural theology, and natural selection, 1838-1859. Cambridge.: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pandey PK, Quilichini TD, Vaid N, Gao P, Xiang D, Datla R. 2019. Versatile and multifaceted CRISPR/Cas gene editing tool for plant research. Seminars in Cell & Developmental Biology. 96:107–114. Academic Press. doi:10.1016/j.semcdb.2019.04.012
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parisi C, Rodríguez-Cerezo E. 2021. Current and future market applications of new genomic techniques. EUR 30589 EN. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. 52. doi:10.2760/02472, JRC123830.
   Google Scholar
• Patel R, Torres RJ, Rosset P. 2005. Genetic engineering in agriculture and corporate engineering in public debate: risk, public relations, and public debate over genetically modified crops. International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health. 11:428–436. doi:10.1179/oeh.2005.11.4.428.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pathak B, Srivastava V. 2020. Recombinase-mediated integration of a multigene cassette in rice leads to stable expression and inheritance of the stacked locus. Plant Direct. 4:1–10. doi:10.1002/pld3.236.
   Google Scholar
• Peng A, Chen S, Lei T, Xu L, He Y, Wu L, Yao L, Zou X. 2017. Engineering canker-resistant plants through CRISPR/Cas9-targeted editing of the susceptibility gene CsLOB1 promoter in citrus. Plant Biotechnology Journal. 15:1509–1519. doi:10.1111/pbi.12733.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Penna S, Jain SM. 2023. Fruit crop improvement with genome editing, in vitro and transgenic approaches. Horticulturae. 9: Article 58. doi:10.3390/horticulturae9010058.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pereira-Lorenzo S, Costa R, Anagnostakis S, Serdar U, Yamamoto T, Saito T, Ramos-Cabrer AM, Ling Q, Barreneche T, Robin C, Botta R. 2016. Interspecific hybridization of chestnut. Polyploidy and Hybridization for Crop Improvement. 15:377–408.
   Google Scholar
• Perrella G, Bäurle I, van Zanten M. 2022. Epigenetic regulation of thermomorphogenesis and heat stress tolerance. New Phytologist. 234:1144–1160. doi:10.1111/nph.17970.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Petolino JF, Kumar S. 2016. Transgenic trait deployment using designed nucleases. Plant Biotechnology Journal. 14:503–509. doi:10.1111/pbi.12457.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pignone D, De Paola D, Rapanà N, Janni M. 2015. Single seed descent: a tool to exploit durum wheat (Triticum durum desf.) genetic resources. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution. 62:1029–1035. doi:10.1007/s10722-014-0206-2.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Planchais S, Glab N, Inzé D, Bergonioux C. 2000. Chemical inhibitors: a tool for plant cell cycle studies. FEBS Letters. 476:78–83. doi:10.1016/S0014-5793(00)01675-6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Poehlman JM. 2013. Breeding field crops. The Netherlands: Springer Netherlands.
   Google Scholar
• Pramanik KA, Sahoo JP, Mohapatra PP, Acharya LK, Jena CH. 2021. Insights into the embryo rescue-a modern in-vitro crop improvement approach in horticulture. Plant Cell Biotechnology Molecular Biology. 22:20–33.
   Google Scholar
• Prigge V, Melchinger AE. 2012. Production of haploids and doubled haploids in maize. In: Loyola-Vargas V, Ochoa-Alejo N, editors. Plant cell culture protocols. Totowa, NJ: Humana Press; p. 161–172. doi:10.1007/978-1-61779-818-4_13
   Google Scholar
• Provine WB. 1971. The origins of theoretical population genetics. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Puchta H. 2016. Using CRISPR/Cas in three dimensions: towards synthetic plant genomes, transcriptomes and epigenomes. The Plant Journal. 87:5–15. doi:10.1111/tpj.13100.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Qaim M. 2015. Global impact of GM crops, 1996–2015. In: Clive James C, Teng P, Arujanan M, Aldemita RR, Flavell RB, Brookes G, Qaim M, editors. Invitational essays to celebrate the 20th anniversary of the commercialization of biotech crops (1996 to 2015): progress and promise. ISAAA brief 51. Ithaca, NY: ISAAA; p. 54–56.
   Google Scholar
• Qaim M. 2016. Genetically modified crops and agricultural development. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. https://books.google.co.nz/books?id = s-kYDAAAQBAJ.
   Google Scholar
• Qaim M. 2020. Role of new plant breeding technologies for food security and sustainable agricultural development. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy. 42:129–150. doi:10.1002/aepp.13044.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Que Q, Chilton MD, de Fontes CM, He C, Nuccio M, Zhu T, Wu Y, Chen JS, Shi L. 2010. Trait stacking in transgenic crops: challenges and opportunities. GM Crops. 1:220–229. doi:10.4161/gmcr.1.4.13439.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Quemada H. 2022. Lessons learned from the introduction of genetically engineered crops: relevance to gene drive deployment in Africa. Transgenic Research. 31:285–311. doi:10.1007/s11248-022-00300-2.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raju SKK, Shao M-R, Sanchez R, Xu Y-Z, Sandhu A, Graef G, Mackenzie S. 2018. An epigenetic breeding system in soybean for increased yield and stability. Plant Biotechnology Journal. 16:1836–1847. doi:10.1111/pbi.12919.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ramanna MS, Jacobsen E. 2003. Relevance of sexual polyploidization for crop improvement: a review. Euphytica. 133:3–8. doi:10.1023/A:1025600824483.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ramchiary N, Park S, Lim YP. 2011. Classical breeding and genetic analysis of vegetable brassicas. In: Sadowski J, Kole C, editors. Genetics, genomics and breeding of vegetable brassicas. Chapter 1. Boca Raton (FL): CRC Press; p. 34–61.
   Google Scholar
• Randhawa HS, Bona L, Graf RJ. 2015. Triticale breeding—progress and prospect. In: Eudes F, editor. Triticale. Cham: Springer; p. 15–32. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-22551-7_2
   Google Scholar
• Ranney TG. 2006. Polyploidy: from evolution to new plant development. Proceedings International Plant Propagators’ Society. 56:137–142.
   Google Scholar
• Ren C, Liu X, Zhang Z, Wang Y, Duan W, Li S, Liang Z. 2016. CRISPR/Cas9-mediated efficient targeted mutagenesis in chardonnay (Vitis vinifera L.). Scientific Reports. 6: Article 32289. doi:10.1038/srep32289.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rieseberg LH, Church SA, Morjan CL. 2004. Integration of populations and differentiation of species. New Phytologist. 161:59–69. doi:10.1046/j.1469-8137.2003.00933.x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rio Declaration. 1992. Rio declaration on environment and development. The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Rio de Janeiro from 3 to 14 June 1992; [accessed 1 January 2023]. https://www.cbd.int/doc/ref/rio-declaration.shtml.
   Google Scholar
• Rogers C, Oldroyd GED. 2014. Synthetic biology approaches to engineering the nitrogen symbiosis in cereals. Journal of Experimental Botany. 65:1939–1946. doi:10.1093/jxb/eru098.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rommens CM. 2004. All-native DNA transformation: a new approach to plant genetic engineering. Trends in Plant Science. 9:457–464.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rommens CM, Haring MA, Swords K, Davies HV. 2007. The intragenic approach as a new extension to traditional plant breeding. Trends in Plant Science. 12:397–403. doi:10.1016/j.tplants.2007.08.001.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rommens CM, Humara JM, Ye J, Yan H, Richael C, Zhang L, Perry R, Swords K. 2004. Crop improvement through modification of the plant’s own genome. Plant Physiology. 135:421–431.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Royal Society Te Apārangi. 2019. Gene editing: scenarios in the primary industries; [accessed 12 January 2023]. https://www.royalsociety.org.nz/assets/Uploads/Gene-Editing-Scenarios-Primary-industries-DIGITAL.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Rozas P, Kessi-Pérez EI, Martínez C. 2022. Genetically modified organisms: adapting regulatory frameworks for evolving genome editing technologies. Biological Research. 55: Article 31. doi:10.1186/s40659-022-00399-x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rozin P. 2005. The meaning of “natural”. Psychological Science. 16:652–658.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rozin P. 2006. Naturalness judgments by lay Americans: process dominates content in judgments of food or water acceptability and naturalness. Judgment and Decision Making. 1:91–97.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ruse M. 1975. Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution: an analysis. Journal of the History of Biology. 8:219–241. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4330635.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sadowski J, Kole C. 2016. Genetics, genomics and breeding of vegetable brassicas. Boca Raton: CRC Press. 450. doi:10.1201/b10880
   Google Scholar
• Salamini F, Ozkan H, Brandolini A, Schäfer-Pregl R, Martin W. 2002. Genetics and geography of wild cereal domestication in the near east. Nature Reviews Genetics. 3:429–441. doi:10.1038/nrg817.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sánchez-León S, Gil-Humanes J, Ozuna CV, Giménez MJ, Sousa C, Voytas DF, Barro F. 2018. Low-gluten, nontransgenic wheat engineered with CRISPR/Cas9. Plant Biotechnology Journal. 16:902–910. doi:10.1111/pbi.12837.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sandhu KS, Merrick LF, Sankaran S, Zhang Z, Carter AH. 2022a. Prospectus of genomic selection and phenomics in cereal, legume and oilseed breeding programs. Frontiers in Genetics. 12: Article 829131. doi:10.3389/fgene.2021.829131.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sandhu KS, Shiv A, Kaur G, Meena MR, Raja AK, Vengavasi K, Mall AK, Kumar S, Singh PK, Singh J, et al. 2022b. Integrated approach in genomic selection to accelerate genetic gain in sugarcane. Plants. 11: Article 2139. doi:10.3390/plants11162139.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sandler R. 2004. An aretaic objection to agricultural biotechnology. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics. 17:301–317. doi:10.1023/B:JAGE.0000033078.05859.08.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sanford JC. 1990. Biolistic plant transformation. Physiologia Plantarum. 79:206–209. doi:10.1111/j.1399-3054.1990.tb05888.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sattler MC, Carvalho CR, Clarindo WR. 2016. The polyploidy and its key role in plant breeding. Planta. 243:281–296. doi:10.1007/s00425-015-2450-x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sauer NJ, Mozoruk J, Miller RB, Warburg ZJ, Walker KA, Beetham PR, Schöpke CR, Gocal GFW. 2016. Oligonucleotide-directed mutagenesis for precision gene editing. Plant Biotechnology Journal. 14:496–502. doi:10.1111/pbi.12496.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saurabh S, Vidyarthi AS, Prasad D. 2014. RNA interference: concept to reality in crop improvement. Planta. 239:543–564. doi:10.1007/s00425-013-2019-5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sawai S, Ohyama K, Yasumoto S, Seki H, Sakuma T, Yamamoto T, Takebayashi Y, Kojima M, Sakakibara H, Aoki T, et al. 2014. Sterol side chain reductase 2 is a key enzyme in the biosynthesis of cholesterol, the common precursor of toxic steroidal glycoalkaloids in potato. The Plant Cell. 26:3763–3774. doi:10.1105/tpc.114.130096.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schaart JG, van de Wiel CCM, Lotz LAP, Smulders MJM. 2016. Opportunities for products of new plant breeding techniques. Trends in Plant Science. 21:438–449. doi:10.1016/j.tplants.2015.11.006.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schaart JG, Visser RG. 2009. Novel plant breeding techniques. Consequences of new genetic modification-based plant breeding techniques in comparison to conventional plant breeding. Wageningen (NT): Wageningen University and Research Center; COGEM Research Report Number 2009-02. The Netherlands Commission on Genetic Modification; [accessed 6 January 2023]. https://edepot.wur.nl/137009.
   Google Scholar
• Schmidt CW. 2005. Genetically modified foods: breeding uncertainty. Environmental Health Perspectives. 113:A526–A533. doi:10.1289/ehp.113-a526.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schouten HJ, Krens FA, Jacobsen E. 2006. Cisgenic plants are similar to traditionally bred plants. EMBO Reports. 7:750–753. doi:10.1038/sj.embor.7400769.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schuermann D, Molinier J, Fritsch O, Hohn B. 2005. The dual nature of homologous recombination in plants. TRENDS in Genetics. 21:172–181. doi:10.1016/j.tig.2005.01.002.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Senthil-Kumar M, Mysore KS. 2011. New dimensions for VIGS in plant functional genomics. Trends in Plant Science. 16:656–665. doi:10.1016/j.tplants.2011.08.006.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Séralini GE, Mesnage CE, Gress R, Defarge S, Malatesta N, Hennequin M, de Vendômois D, S J. 2014. Republished study: long-term toxicity of a roundup herbicide and a roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize. Environmental Sciences Europe. 26: Article 14. http://www.enveurope.com/content/26/1/14.
   Google Scholar
• Shan Q, Zhang Y, Chen K, Zhang K, Gao C. 2015. Creation of fragrant rice by targeted knockout of the OsBADH2 gene using TALEN technology. Plant Biotechnology Journal. 13:791–800. doi:10.1111/pbi.12312.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shen C, Yin X-C, Jiao B-Y, Li J, Jia P, Zhang X-W, Cheng X-H, Ren J-X, Lan H-D, Hou W-B, et al. 2022. Evaluation of adverse effects/events of genetically modified food consumption: a systematic review of animal and human studies. Environmental Sciences Europe. 34: Article 8. doi:10.1186/s12302-021-00578-9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shen J-X, Fu T-D, Yang G-S, Tu J-X, Ma C-Z. 2006. Prediction of heterosis using QTLs for yield traits in rapeseed (Brassica napus L.). Euphytica. 151:165–171. doi:10.1007/s10681-006-9137-0.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shew AM, Nalley LL, Snell HA, Nayga RM, Dixon BL. 2018. CRISPR versus GMOs: public acceptance and valuation. Global Food Security. 19:71–80. doi:10.1016/j.gfs.2018.10.005.
   Google Scholar
• Shi J, Gao H, Wang H, Lafitte HR, Archibald RL, Yang M, Hakimi SM, Mo H, Habben JE. 2017. ARGOS8 variants generated by CRISPR-Cas9 improve maize grain yield under field drought stress conditions. Plant Biotechnology Journal. 15:207–216. doi:10.1111/pbi.12603.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shukla V, Doyon Y, Miller J, DeKelver RC, Moehle EA, Worden SE, Mitchell JC, Arnold NL, Gopalan S, Meng X, Choi VM, et al. 2009. Precise genome modification in the crop species Zea mays using zinc-finger nucleases. Nature. 459:437–441. doi:10.1038/nature07992.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Siegrist M. 2008. Factors influencing public acceptance of innovative food technologies and products. Trends in Food Science & Technology. 19:603–608. doi:10.1016/j.tifs.2008.01.017.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Singh RK, Prasad M. 2022. Biomolecules of mushroom: a recipe of human wellness. Critical Reviews in Biotechnology. 42:913–930. doi:10.1080/07388551.2021.1964431.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sjöberg L. 2000. Perceived risk and tampering with nature. Journal of Risk Research. 3:353–367. doi:10.1080/13669870050132568.
   Google Scholar
• Smirnova OG, Ibragimova SS, Kochetov AV. 2012. Simple database to select promoters for plant transgenesis. Transgenic Research. 21:429–437. doi:10.1007/s11248-011-9538-2.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smyth SJ, Lassoued R. 2019. Agriculture R&D implications of the CJEU’s gene-specific mutagenesis ruling. Trends in Biotechnology. 37:337–340. doi:10.1016/j.tibtech.2018.09.004.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Snape J, Riggs T. 1975. Genetical consequences of single seed descent in the breeding of self-pollinating crops. Heredity. 35:211–219. doi:10.1038/hdy.1975.85.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Song G-q, Sink KC, Walworth AE, Cook MA, Allison RF, Lang GA. 2013. Engineering cherry rootstocks with resistance to Prunus necrotic ring spot virus through RNAi-mediated silencing. Plant Biotechnology Journal. 11:702–708. doi:10.1111/pbi.12060.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Songstad DD, Petolino JF, Voytas DF, Reichert NA. 2017. Genome editing of plants. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences. 36:1–23. doi:10.1080/07352689.2017.1281663.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sopory S, Munshi M. 1996. Anther culture. In: Jain SM, Sopory SK, Veilleux RE, editors. In vitro haploid production in higher plants, vol. 23. Dordrecht: Kluwer; p. 145–176. doi:10.1007/978-94-017-1860-8_9
   Google Scholar
• Sprague GF. 1946. The experimental basis for hybrid maize. Biological Reviews. 21:101–120. doi:10.1111/j.1469-185X.1946.tb00317.x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sprink T, Wilhelm R, Hartung F. 2022. Genome editing around the globe: an update on policies and perceptions. Plant Physiology. 190:1579–1587. doi:10.1093/plphys/kiac359.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stenseth NC, Andersson L, Hoekstra HE. 2022. Gregor Johann Mendel and the development of modern evolutionary biology. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 119(30):Article 119. doi:10.1073/pnas.2201327119.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stoskopf NC, Tomes DT, Christie BR. 2019. Plant breeding: theory and practice. London and New York: Routledge Taylor and Francis Group.
   Google Scholar
• Stupar RM, Gardiner JM, Oldre AG, Haun WJ, Chandler VL, Spinger NM. 2008. Gene expression analyses in maize inbreds and hybrids with varying levels of heterosis. BMC Plant Biology. 8: Article 33. doi:10.1186/1471-2229-8-33.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sun Y, Jiao G, Liu Z, Zhang X, Li J, Guo X, Du W, Du J, Francis F, Zhao Y, Xia L. 2017. Generation of high-amylose rice through CRISPR/Cas9-mediated targeted mutagenesis of starch branching enzymes. Frontiers in Plant Science. 8: Article 298. doi:10.3389/fpls.2017.00298.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Svitashev S, Young JK, Schwartz C, Gao H, Falco SC, Cigan AM. 2015. Targeted mutagenesis, precise gene editing, and site-specific gene insertion in maize using Cas9 and guide RNA. Plant Physiology. 169:931–945. doi:10.1104/pp.15.00793.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Szymajda M, Napiórkowska B, Korbin M, Żurawicz E. 2015. Studies on the interspecific crossing compatibility among three Prunus species and their hybrids. Horticultural Science. 42(2):70–82. doi:10.17221/273/2014-HORTSCI.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tagliabue G. 2016. The meaningless pseudo-category of “GMOs”. EMBO Reports. 17:10–13. doi:10.15252/embr.201541385.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tait J. 2001. More faust than frankenstein: The European debate about the precautionary principle and risk regulation for genetically modified crops. Journal of Risk Research. 4:175–189. doi:10.1080/13669870010027640.
   Google Scholar
• Tak S, Kaushik RA, Nath A. 2016. Studies on heterosis in interspecific hybrids of cucumis. The Bioscan. 11:3155–3159.
   Google Scholar
• The Royal Society. 2016. Is it safe to eat GM crops?; [accessed 1 January 2023]. https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/gm-plants/is-it-safe-to-eat-gm-crops/.
   Google Scholar
• Tirado R, Johnston P. 2010. Food security: GM crops threaten biodiversity. Science. 328:170–171.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tourism NZ. 2009. Pure as celebrating 10 years of 100% Pure New Zealand; [accessed 27 April 2022]. https://www.tourismnewzealand.com/media/1544/pure-as-celebrating-10-years-of-100-pure-new-zealand.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Townsend J, Wright D, Winfrey R, Fu F, Maeder ML, Joung JK, Voytas DF. 2009. High-frequency modification of plant genes using engineered zinc-finger nucleases. Nature. 459:442–445. doi:10.1038/nature07845.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tozer KN, Carswell K, Griffiths WM, Crush JR, Cameron CA, Chapman DF, Popay A, King W. 2017. Growth responses of diploid and tetraploid perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne) to soil-moisture deficit, defoliation and a root-feeding invertebrate. Crop and Pasture Science. 68:632–642. doi:10.1071/CP17154.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trethowan RM, Reynolds MP, Ortiz-Monasterio JI, Ortiz R. 2007. The genetic basis of the green revolution in wheat production. Plant Breeding Reviews. 28:39–58.
   Google Scholar
• Tripathi JN, Ntui VO, Ron M, Muiruri SK, Britt A, Tripathi L. 2019. CRISPR/cas9 editing of endogenous banana streak virus in the B genome of Musa spp. overcomes a major challenge in banana breeding. Communications Biology. 2: Article 46. doi:10.1038/s42003-019-0288-7.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Turnbull C, Lillemo M, Hvoslef-Eide TA. 2021. Global regulation of genetically modified crops amid the gene edited crop boom – A review. Frontiers in Plant Science. 12: Article 630396. doi:10.3389/fpls.2021.630396.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• United States Patent. 2009. Tomato plants. Patent No.: US 7,612.261 B2; [accessed 25 February 2023]. https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/17/d5/0d/dcba5fd7f54abf/US7612261.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• USDA. 2022. Agricultural Biotechnology Glossary; [accessed 27 December 2022]. https://www.usda.gov/topics/biotechnology/biotechnology-glossary#:~:text = Genetic%20engineering%3A%20Manipulation%20of%20an,to%20as%20recombinant%20DNA%20techniques.
   Google Scholar
• Vanblaere T, Szankowski I, Schaart J, Schouten H, Flachowsky H, Broggini GAL, Gessler C. 2011. The development of a cisgenic apple plant. Journal of Biotechnology. 154:304–311.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vanderzwaag DL, Fuller SD, Myers RA. 2002. Canada and the precautionary principle/approach in ocean and coastal management: wading and wandering in tricky currents. Ottawa Law Review. 34:117–158.
   Google Scholar
• van Heerwaarden J, Doebley J, Briggs WH, Glaubitz JC, Goodman MM, de JS, Gonzalez J, RossIbarra J. 2011. Genetic signals of origin, spread, and introgression in a large sample of maize landraces. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 108:1088–1092. doi:10.1073/pnas.1013011108.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vanlay M, Samnang S, Jung H-J, Choe P, Kang KK, Nou I-S. 2022. Interspecific and intraspecific hybrid rootstocks to improve horticultural traits and soil-borne disease resistance in tomato. Genes. 13: Article 1468. doi:10.3390/genes13081468.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Tuyl JM, Lim K-B. 2003. Interspecific hybridisation and polyploidisation as tools in ornamental plant breeding. Acta Horticulturae. 612:13–22. doi:10.17660/ActaHortic.2003.612.1.
   Google Scholar
• Vega Rodríguez A, Rodríguez-Oramas C, Sanjuán Velázquez E, Hardisson de la Torre A, Rubio Armendáriz C, Carrascosa Iruzubieta C. 2022. Myths and realities about genetically modified food: a risk-benefit analysis. Applied Sciences. 12: Article 2861. doi:10.3390/app12062861.
   Google Scholar
• Veillet F, Perrot L, Chauvin L, Kermarrec M-P, Guyon-Debast A, Chauvin J-E, Nogué F, Mazier M. 2019. Transgene-free genome editing in tomato and potato plants using Agrobacterium-mediated delivery of a CRISPR/Cas9 cytidine base editor. International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 20: Article 402. doi:10.3390/ijms20020402.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Verma N, Giri SK, Singh G, Gill R, Kumar A. 2022. Epigenetic regulation of heat and cold stress responses in crop plants. Plant Gene. 17: Article 100351. doi:10.1016/j.plgene.2022.100351.
   Google Scholar
• Vida G, Gál M, Uhrin A, Veisz O, Syed MH, Flavell AJ, Wang Z, Bedő Z. 2009. Molecular markers for the identification of resistance genes and marker-assisted selection in breeding wheat for leaf rust resistance. Euphytica. 170:67–76. doi:10.1007/s10681-009-9945-0.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Virmani SS, Aquino RC, Khush GS. 1982. Heterosis breeding in rice (Oryza sativa L.). Theoretical and Applied Genetics. 63:373–380. doi:10.1007/BF00303911.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Waltz E. 2015. USDA approves next-generation GM potato. Nature Biotechnology. 33:12–13. doi:10.1038/nbt0115-12.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Waltz E. 2016. CRISPR-edited crops free to enter market, skip regulation. Nature Biotechnology. 34: Article 582. doi:10.1038/nbt0616-582.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Waltz E. 2018. With a free pass, CRISPR-edited plants reach market in record time. Nature Biotechnology. 36:6–7. doi:10.1038/nbt0118-6b.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Waltz E. 2019. Appetite grows for biotech foods with health benefits. Nature Biotechnology. 37:573–575. doi:10.1038/d41587-019-00012-9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Waltz E. 2022. GABA-enriched tomato is first CRISPR-edited food to enter market. Nature Biotechnology. 40:9–11. doi:https://doi.org/10.1038/d41587-021-00026-2.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang F, Wang C, Liu P, Lei C, Hao W, Gao Y, Liu Y-G, Zhao K. 2016. Enhanced rice blast resistance by CRISPR/Cas9-targeted mutagenesis of the ERF transcription factor gene OsERF922. PLoS One. 11: Article e0154027. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0154027.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang Y, Cheng X, Shan Q, Zhang Y, Liu J, Gao C, Qiu J-L. 2014. Simultaneous editing of three homoeoalleles in hexaploid bread wheat confers heritable resistance to powdery mildew. Nature Biotechnology. 32:947–951. doi:10.1038/nbt.2969.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wehrs M, Tanjore D, Eng T, Lievense J, Pray TR, Mukhopadhyay A. 2019. Engineering robust production microbes for large-scale cultivation. Trends in Microbiology. 27:524–537. doi:10.1016/j.tim.2019.01.006.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weinhold B. 2006. Epigenetics: The science of change. Environmental Health Perspectives. 114: Article 3. doi:10.1289/ehp.114-a160.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wesseler J, Bonanno A, Drabik D, Materia VC, Malaguti L, Meyer M, Venus TJ. 2015. Overview of the agricultural input sector in the EU. Directorate-General for Internal Policies. Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies. Agriculture and Rural Development. doi:10.2861/49815.
   Google Scholar
• West JD, Bergstrom CT. 2021. Misinformation in and about science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 118: Article e1912444117. https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073pnas.1912444117.
   Google Scholar
• West-Eberhard MJ. 1989. Phenotypic plasticity and the origins of diversity. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics. 20:249–278. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2097092.
   Google Scholar
• Wheatley MS, Yang Y. 2021. Versatile applications of the CRISPR/Cas toolkit in plant pathology and disease management. Phytopathology. 111:1080–1090. doi:10.1094/PHYTO-08-20-0322-IA.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Whelan AI, Lema MA. 2015. Regulatory framework for gene editing and other new breeding techniques (NBTs) in Argentina. GM Crops & Food. 6:253–265. doi:10.1080/21645698.2015.1114698.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wiener JB. 2001. Precaution in a multi-risk world. Duke Law School public law and legal theory working paper series, Working Paper No. 23. Durham, North Carolina; [accessed 26 February 2023]. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id = 293859.
   Google Scholar
• Wilkins J. 2007. The dimensions, modes and definitions of species and speciation. Biology & Philosophy. 22:247–266. doi:10.1007/s10539-006-9043-9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wolter F, Schindele P, Puchta H. 2019. Plant breeding at the speed of light: the power of CRISPR/Cas to generate directed genetic diversity at multiple sites. BMC Plant Biology. 19: Article 176. doi:10.1186/s12870-019-1775-1.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wu J, Chen C, Xian G, Liu D, Lin L, Yin S, Sun Q, Fang Y, Zhang H, Wang Y. 2020. Engineering herbicide-resistant oilseed rape by CRISPR/Cas9-mediated cytosine base-editing. Plant Biotechnology Journal. 18:1857–1859. doi:10.1111/pbi.13368.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yamagishi H, Bhat SR. 2014. Cytoplasmic male sterility in Brassicaceae crops. Breeding Science. 64:38–47. doi:10.1270/jsbbs.64.38.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yang J, Zimmerly S, Perlman PS, Lambowitz AM. 1996. Efficient integration of an intron RNA into double-stranded DNA by reverse splicing. Nature. 381:332–335. doi:10.1038/381332a0.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yilmaz S, Nyerges A, van der Oost J, Church GM, Claassens NJ. 2022. Towards next-generation cell factories by rational genome-scale engineering. Nature Catalysis. 5:751–765. doi:10.1038/s41929-022-00836-w.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yin X, Biswal AK, Dionora J, Perdigon KM, Balahadia CP, Mazumdar S, Chater C, Lin HC, Coe RA, Kretzschmar T, Gray JE. 2017. CRISPR-Cas9 and CRISPR-Cpf1 mediated targeting of a stomatal developmental gene EPFL9 in rice. Plant Cell Reports. 36:745–757. doi:10.1007/s00299-017-2118-z.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Young ND. 1999. Cautiously optimistic vision for marker-assisted breeding. Molecular Breeding. 5:505–510. doi:10.1023/A:1009684409326.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Younis A, Hwang YJ, Lim KB. 2014. Exploitation of induced 2n-gametes for plant breeding. Plant Cell Reports. 33:215–223. doi:10.1007/s00299-013-1534-y.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zachos FE. 2016. Species concepts in biology: historical development, theoretical foundations and practical relevance. Springer International Publishing Switzerland. 227. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-44966-1
   Google Scholar
• Zafar SA, Zaidi SSEA, Gaba Y, Singla-Pareek SL, Dhankher OP, Li X, Mansoor S, Pareek A. 2020. Engineering abiotic stress tolerance via CRISPR/ Cas-mediated genome editing. Journal of Experimental Botany. 71:470–479. doi:10.1093/jxb/erz476.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zaidi SS, Vanderschuren H, Qaim M, Mahfouz MM, Kohli A, Mansoor S, Tester M. 2019. New plant breeding technologies for food security. Science. 363:1390–1391. https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126science.aav6316.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zanoni U, Dudley JW. 1989. Comparison of different methods of identifying inbreds useful for improving elite maize hybrids. Crop Science. 29:577–582. doi:10.2135/cropsci1989.0011183X002900030005x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zetsche B, Gootenberg JS, Abudayyeh OO, Slaymaker IM, Makarova KS, Essletzbichler P, Volz SE, Joung J, Van Der Oost J, Regev A, Koonin EV. 2015. Cpf1 is a single RNA-guided endonuclease of a class 2 CRISPR-Cas system. Cell. 163:759–771. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2015.09.038.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zeven AC. 1998. Landraces: a review of definitions and classifications. Euphytica. 104:127–139.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang H, Zhang J, Wei P, Zhang B, Gou F, Feng Z, Mao Y, Yang L, Zhang H, Xu N, Zhu J-K. 2014. The CRISPR/Cas9 system produces specific and homozygous targeted gene editing in rice in one generation. Plant Biotechnology Journal. 12:797–807. doi:10.1111/pbi.12200.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhu T, Mettenburg K, Peterson DJ, Tagliani L, Baszczynski CL. 2000. Engineering herbicide-resistant maize using chimeric RNA/DNA oligonucleotides. Nature Biotechnology. 18:555–558. doi:10.1038/75435.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhu X, Liu X, Liu T, Wang Y, Ahmed N, Li Z, Jiang H. 2021. Synthetic biology of plant natural products: from pathway elucidation to engineered biosynthesis in plant cells. Plant Communications. 2: Article 100229. doi:10.1016/j.xplc.2021.100229
   Google Scholar
• Zsögön A, Čermák T, Naves E, Notini MM, Edel KH, Weinl S, Freschi L, Voytas DF, Kudla J, Peres LEP. 2018. De novo domestication of wild tomato using genome editing. Nature Biotechnology. 36:1211–1216. doi:10.1038/nbt.4272.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar